5
Programmes are ‘embedded’. They are always inserted into pre-existing social situations Educational initiatives operate at different levels: Ideas Individuals Institution Infrastructure

6
Programmes are theories A ‘role model’ programme theory also known as ‘Dishy-David-Beckham-theory’ ‘ Interviewer : But do you think the fact that these good-looking blokes are footballers has any effect on girls' attitude to playing football? Girl : No, I think it has more effect on them watching football, well not the football - the guys (general laughter and agreement)’.

7
Programmes are ‘active’ They are ‘active’ in the sense that their intended effects work through the reasoning and volition of their subjects. Even ‘mechanical’ interventions like the free distribution of smoke alarms depend on the subject’s ideas. Alarms sometimes work but also end up: not installed (can’t be bothered) removed (always going off) battery flat (too fiddly to change) battery ‘walks’ (to Walkman or TV remote)

8
Realist Evaluation: Mechanisms, Contexts and Outcomes The same programme mechanism will have different outcomes in different contexts Don’t ask ‘what works?’ Rather, investigate: ‘what works for whom in what circumstances?’

9
Example: Prisoner Education A Practitioner Theory “ The men who are more likely to be changed are best described as ‘mediocre’. You shouldn’t look for high-flyers. They’re likely to come from a deprived background with a poor and maybe non-existent school record. They will be mediocre criminals too. They’ll have gone on from petty crime, street crime to drugs or armed robbery or something. Then when they come onto the program, they’re mediocre or worse. They just survive the first semester but gradually they build up getting C’s and B’s. So by the end, they’ve actually come a long, long way. And that’s what changes ‘em. It’s not so much a case of ‘rehabilitation’ as ‘habilitation’.”

17
Public notification – basic theory i) Identification: in which the performance or behaviour in question is observed and then classified, measured, rated, ranked, verified, etc. ii) Naming: in which information on, and the identity of, the failing or deviant party is disclosed, publicized, disseminated, notified, published, broadcast, registered etc. iii) Public sanction: in which the broader community acts on the disclosure in order to shame, reprimand, reproach, censure, control, influence, supervise the named party. iv) Recipient response: in which behavioural change follows the sanction, with the subjects being shamed, regretful, penitent, contrite, restrained, re-integrated etc.

18
NAMED BUT WHO IS SHAMED? Poll-tax protesters named in the local newspapers Sex offenders under community notification Under-performing schools identified in league tables Motor manufacturers named in the Car Theft Index

19
Poll-tax protesters named in the local newspapers Poll tax non-payment – there were a great many sanctions imposed: fines, wage arrest, court appearances etc. Protesters thus ignored or even celebrated disclosure of their names in the local press. Policy abandoned.

20
Sex offenders under community notification Notified Sex Offenders are resentful or scared by public attention. One key result is non- compliance with registration and displacement to other localities. Re-offence rates remain static.

23
Is there a theory to accommodate these differences in outcome? Merton’s Typology of aspirations to group membership of eligibles and non-eligibles

24
The theory under further refinement For N&S to ‘work’ the following configuration should be in place: the named party should be an ‘aspirational insider’ the shaming mechanism should be dovetailed with other mechanism (market sanctions) the disclosure should carry intense (but controllable) media interest the disclosed data should unambiguous both in allocating blame and in suggested remedial action the disclosing authority should have had exemplary watchdog credentials, which are operated benignly

25
Example II. Megan’s Law - Programme Theory STEP ONE Problem Identification Identify high-risk released sex offenders and create valid and reliable registers STEP TWO Public disclosure Issue bulletins, press releases, call meeting to identify released offenders to their community STEP THREE Sanction Instigation Community joins with police and probation to increase surveillance of suspicious behaviour STEP FOUR Offender response Community actions shame offenders and decrease opportunity of further offence

26
Evidence fragment one: could the law have made a difference? - a ‘retrospective simulation’ Petrosino & Petrosino 136 serious sex offences 36 previous offence 12 stranger predatory offences 6 could potentially respond to community notification 100 no previous offence 24 known to victim 6 offender from out of state

28
Evidence fragment three: how did practitioners respond? Office talk “The Law is an unfunded mandate” “Special Bulletin Notification added more work to already over-worked agents” “There is more pressure to baby sit with SBN cases simply because they are SBN cases” Zevitz and Farkas

29
Key findings synthesised Study 1: Following The introduction of the law, detection increase more sharply than deterrence. Study 2: The chances of community surveillance of stranger predatory offences remain low and offender may lie low Study 3: practitioner attention becomes increasingly focused on SBN cases because of community harassment

30
And Finally What it feels like to do realist synthesis … THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION